From the Church of England website on Wed 15 Nov 2017
Membership of the Episcopal Teaching Document and Pastoral Advisory Group
Episcopal teaching document
CURRENT MEMBERSHIP OF THE CO-ORDINATING GROUP
Chair
The Bishop of Coventry, The Rt Revd Dr Christopher Cocksworth
Episcopal members
The Bishop of Fulham, The Rt Revd Jonathan Baker
The Bishop of Salisbury, The Rt Revd Nick Holtam
The Bishop of Bradford, The Rt Revd Dr Toby Howarth
The Bishop of Dorking, The Rt Revd Dr Jo Bailey Wells
The Bishop of Hull, The Rt Revd Alison White
Core consultant members
The Revd Canon Giles Goddard
The Revd Canon Dr Andrew Goddard
The Revd Dr Jason Roach
The Rt Revd Dr Bill Musk, former Bishop of North Africa (until 1st November 2017)
The Revd Dr Christina Beardsley
Dr Elaine Storkey
CURRENT MEMBERSHIP OF THE DIFFERENT THEMATIC WORKING GROUPS
Social and Biological Sciences
Chair
The Bishop of Crediton, The Rt Revd Sarah Mullally
Staff support
The Revd Dr Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs
Members
The Revd Professor Christopher Cook, University of Durham
The Revd Dr Andrew Davison, Starbridge Lecturer in Theology and Natural Sciences, University of Cambridge
The Revd Duncan Dormor, Dean, St John’s College, University of Cambridge
The Revd Canon Dr Jessica Martin, Ely Cathedral
Professor Roger Trigg, Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford and Prof. Emeritus at University of Warwick
Biblical
Chair
The Bishop of Sheffield, The Rt Revd Dr Pete Wilcox
Staff support
The Revd Dr Isabelle Hamley, Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury
Members
The Revd Dr Andrew Angel, Chichester Diocese, former Vice Principal of St John’s Nottingham
Professor Judith Lieu, University of Cambridge, Chair of Methodist Faith and Order Committee
The Revd Professor Walter Moberly, Durham University
Dr Nathan McDonald, University of Cambridge
The Revd Professor Jennifer Strawbridge, University of Oxford
The Revd Dr Chris Wright, Langham Partnership, formerly principal of All Nations
Consultants
The Revd Professor Richard Burridge, Dean, King’s College London
The Revd Professor Tom Wright, University of St Andrews
Theological
Chair
The Bishop of Chichester, The Rt Revd Dr Martin Warner
Staff support
The Revd Dr Jeremy Worthen, Secretary for Ecumenical Relations & Theology, CCU
Members
Dr Susannah Cornwall, University of Exeter
Dr Amy Daughton, Director of Studies, Margaret Beaufort Institute of Theology
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty, St Mellitus College
Professor Mike Higton, University of Durham
Professor Simon Oliver, University of Durham
Historical
Chair
The Bishop of Winchester, The Rt Revd Tim Dakin
Staff support
The Revd Dr Will Adam, Ecumenical Adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury
Members
The Revd Dr Andrew Atherstone, Wycliffe Hall
The Revd Professor Mark Chapman, Vice Principal, Ripon College Cuddesdon
Professor Helen King, Professor Emerita at the Open University
The Revd Dr Judith Maltby, Chaplain, Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Professor Julian Rivers, University of Bristol
Dr Medi-Ann Volpe, Cranmer Hall, Durham
Pastoral advisory group
CURRENT MEMBERSHIP OF THE PASTORAL ADVISORY GROUP
Chair
The Bishop of Newcastle, The Rt Revd Christine Hardman
Other Episcopal Members
The Bishop of Exeter, The Rt Revd Robert Atwell
The Bishop of Willesden, The Rt Revd Pete Broadbent
The Bishop of Grantham, The Rt Revd Dr Nicholas Chamberlain
The Bishop of Repton, The Rt Revd Jan McFarlane
Members
The Revd Sam Allberry
Professor Helen Berry
Dr Jamie Harrison
The Revd Dr Rosemarie Mallett
The Ven Cherry Vann
Some of the comments on the piece by the Archbishop of Canterbury make me very sad. Children. Children. Oh the children. I don’t care what people believe, our primary concern is that children are not bullied.
Surely the description of Tom Wright as “The Rev’d Professor ….” is inaccurate. (I appreciate that it is copied from the CoE website). He may not be exercising any episcopal functions but he remains a bishop in the church and should surely be described as “The Rt Rev’d Professor”.
All of which serves as a reminder to issue my usual public service announcement about this:
Dear progressive friends in the Church of England
Remember above all things that this has been designed so you can’t have what you believe to be God’s will.
Do not play this game if you want to achieve anything. It has been designed to prevent change.
I have previously been critical of the ‘teaching document’ for (amongst other things) being dominated by bishops (in comments made on this website, and posted in a longer form on Colin Coward’s blogsite unadulteratedlove.net). In a response to my concerns (letters, Church Times, 22nd September), Malcolm Brown suggested I had misunderstood, and that the coordinating group did not in fact have a majority of bishops. But I can’t help noticing that the names released today still indicate that the final report will be ‘coordinated’ by seven bishops, four clergy, and one lay person. Am I missing something?
What a lot of people talking about us.
Thank God there are a few intellectual heavyweights on this who I hope may encourage some to wake up and smell the coffee on this subject. My fear is that Kelvin is going to be right and the drawn out process of producing all the words will end up as merely a delaying tactic. I sincerely hope I’m wrong on that, but it’s hard fighting back the cynicism.
I am really worried about this report and the makeup of the group involved in its composition. Yes, it has experts but it is also clearly partisan in nature. I fear Kevin Holdsworth is correct. I wish that the whole project could be dropped and a straightforward acceptance of different integrties accepted. The document will, I think, end up at the bottom of desk drawers gathering dust, with nothing really having changed.
What a lot of people talking about us, says Fr Andrew. Yes indeed, fifty four in total. Of the 54, I identify 7 as LGBTI and 2 as ex-gay. The membership of each group has been selected to reflect the spectrum of opinion about LGBTI people within the Church of England. It has not been selected to produce a report focused on our experience and expectations. As Kelvin notes in his public service announcement, this has been designed to prevent change and to ensure that what I and many others (probably the majority of Church of England members) believe to… Read more »
Yes, Fr. Andrew. And why are there so few people owning an identity as LGBTQI in this group. Is there no-one willing to wo/man the barricades?
“What a lot of people talking about us.” It’s more than that. God has given certain people more knowledge of LGBT issues than the general population, by gifting us direct, personal experience. The church – which claims to listen to the voice of God – somehow believes it knows better than God and ignores His gift. Why? And why is the church never challenged for setting itself above God? If the church wishes to discern the will of God on an issue, surely the starting point is, “Has God granted anyone particular knowledge of this question?” Yes, some on the… Read more »
I wonder why Elaine Graham and Jayne Ozanne aren’t on it? Maybe they had too many other commitments? They would both have a lot to contribute.
Are there any accepting evangelicals on the group? There need to be voices who can argue from the scriptures for inclusion and equal treatment of gay people. And finally, is there anyone there who is openly gay? I hope so, and not just a token one or two.
A lot of people talking to each other with no one else listening.
An awful lot of people talking about us, Andrew.
Seems a bit like overkill to me— what are they afraid of / up to ?
I, too, doubt the sincerity and integrity of this process.
“…talking about us.”
I would also note that Nathan MacDonald and Judy Lieu are non-anglicans; rather, Baptist and Methodist respectively.
The anti-progressives certainly know how to tie up an awesome array of theological, biblical, ecclesiological and other talent for a further period of at least three years, on a task that has already made no progress for the last 26, when IIHS was published in 1991. Come 2020, there will need to be another group to consider the wider Anglican Communion issues, also ecumenical, because we can’t ignore our traditionalist friends in certain important provinces can we? What are we expected to learn from this Teaching Document? It could be writtten in three months. And being a Teaching Document, what… Read more »
I’m entirely with the sceptics on this one. Selection for membership of these groups is entirely based in managing ecclesiastical politics, and not at all about pursuing truth and justice. The interesting question might be: at what point do those supporting one side or the other drop out and refuse to endorse the final report when they realise it’s not going their way?
No talking about us without us. 7 out of 54 really isn’t OK.
My immediate reaction to seeing this was to recall the definition of a camel as a horse designed by a committee, and to ask myself what happens if four committees try to design a horse… But, more seriously, however well intentioned is this exercise, I do not see it as having much likelihood of success, if by success you mean sweetness and light all round, for all the reasons set out by others above. Incidentally, in any other setting, it would surely be inconceivable not to include people such as Andrew Foreshew-Cain or Jeremy Pemberton who have followed their consciences… Read more »
Janet Fife. I am a bit puzzled by this statement. “Are there any accepting evangelicals on the group? There need to be voices who can argue from the scriptures for inclusion and equal treatment of gay people.” I have many books on my bookshelves by non-evangelical Christians which argue for inclusion and equal treatment of gay people. These book contain, as is normal, extensive analysis and reflection on scriptural texts. Surely these many scholars are able to “argue from the scriptures”. You seem to be implying that arguing from the scriptures is a charism open only to evangelicals, and I… Read more »
“You seem to be implying that arguing from the scriptures is a charism open only to evangelicals, and I am not sure that is what you meant, or did you?” – Posted by: Simon Dawson on Thursday.
With all due respect, Simon. I did not read Janet’s comment in the same way as you. Janet seems to me to be reflecting the FACT that there actually are people in the Evangelical wing of the Church accepting of LGBTQI people – who, also, ought to be represented on this panel.
Perhaps someone should write a history of reports in the C of E from the 1964 Paul Report onwards with a view to seeing if they have made much difference to anything.
I agree with Anthony Archer wholeheartedly – dust down Pilling and just get on with it. It really should be that simple.
“I wish that the whole project could be dropped and a straightforward acceptance of different integrities accepted.” I agree with Andrew Lightbown. The REAL question is not “What does the Church of England believe about human sexuality and gender identity?” We already know that for decades it has believed wide, differing, and conflicting things. People are entrenched in their conscientious beliefs. There is no ‘one way’ of believing about human sexuality. That way only leads to domination of one conscience over another conscience. The REAL question is “Are we willing to find the grace and love to live together, in… Read more »
I agree with Anthony Archer too: this vast array of Rt. Revs, Profs & Doctors have been put together for one purpose only: three years more delay. Then, no doubt Abp Welby will decree that the findings will need to be shared among the wider Anglican Communion, for say, another three years, and then, taking into account the howls of protest from that quarter, another extended period of theological reflection. That should take us up to about 2030! I entirely sympathise with Colin Coward’s image of an object to be extensively examined, scrutinised and dissected. It reminds me of a… Read more »
Fr. Ron Smith is right, I did mean that evangelicals who accept gay relationships as valid should be represented on the panel. Not because they have any special charism, but because the panel should represent that point of view. It’s common enough.
Perhaps the one thing everyone on here can now accept is that the Church of England has no authority – on absolutely anything!
Traditionalists look beyond Anglicanism for their moral theology and progressives just carry on doing their own thing. What on earth is the point of this committee? What will it achieve?
The best that any of us can hope for is that the Church of England will simply remain silent.
Once again, I am reminded of the absurdity that the Church of England already allows same sex marriages so long as the couple are opposite gendered.
The Social and Biological Sciences group clearly has some very clever people appointed to it but – according to their available CVs – none, it would appear, has any relevant biological or scientific qualifications in the areas of sexuality, intersex, or transgender issues. It would have been nice to have people who knew something about the subject to be talking about us. And, based on her qualifications and experience, quite why Jessica Martin was chosen is a *complete* mystery! I am happy to be corrected if I have omitted anything of relevance. Here’s a summary: The Bishop of Crediton, The… Read more »
Simon Dawson,
inclusion from a non-evangelical point of view is quite standard theology these days. Evangelicals often have a different approach to hermeneutics to other theologians and are more likely to dismiss a theology that is not based on the same principles.
There are members of conservative evangelical organisations on the panel. And to redress the balance, it would be extremely helpful if there were members of Accepting Evangelicals too – who can present the other side of the evangelical coin.
Fr. Ron Smith is right, I simply meant that accepting evangelicals ought to be represented. There are plenty of them. They have no special charism, but why give the impression that only conservative evangelicals are worth listening to? Or that all evangelicals believe gay sex is wrong?
Janet, Erika and Father Ron, Thanks for your replies. I agree with you that Evangelical Christians with a pro gay perspective should be within the discussion, and I am aware that many pro-gay evangelical Christians making their voices heard. My puzzlement was simply to do with the phrase “argue from the scriptures”. It is a common tactic of certain conservative evangelical groups to claim that their own anti-gay position is based on the scriptures, and that those who follow a pro-gay line must have abandoned scripture and capitulated to the modern secular world view. To counter this I think it… Read more »
But how does “arguing from scripture” resolve anything? People have been arguing their conscientious positions from scripture for decades. The horse has been flogged to death. There are simply very different views about the acceptability of gay sex. If this venture is aimed at one side’s position being scripturally proved, it can only fail. If it’s about “arguing from scripture”, that’s what you’ll get: arguing. What’s needed is not a theological ‘winner’ but the opening of human hearts to grace and love… the grace and love to hold different views, yet still love, still deeply want one another’s flourishing in… Read more »
As to the usefulness of Jessica Martin to the Social and Biological Sciences Group, although she is not a scientist, she wrote a Prologue to the 2013 Report of the Bishops’ Working Party on Human Sexuality, with the title ‘Holiness and Desire’. And she works with Sarah Coakley, who has valuable things to say.
I have no recollection now of what she said in ‘Holiness and Desire’. But one could always look it up.
But Susannah, you have already admitted that there is going a side that leaves– that “Do whatever is right in your own eyes” is not going to be an acceptable theology for some any more than “sex is only for marriage” is acceptable for others. And is “You do whatever you want and I’ll do whatever I want– while praying for the others to come to our sensibilities” really where the church should go? Is that really all the church has to offer? Because the local Humanism Club has that theme, minus the prayer part.
I agree with both Susannah and Erika. ‘Arguing from Scripture’ is a horse that has been flogged to death, partly because some / most of those deeply opposed are entirely invested in a different and specific hermeneutic of the gospel, which they are not going to relinquish. I find this whole project so utterly depressing. As Anthony Archer correctly suggests: dust down Pilling and get on with the job of building a radical new inclusivity. It really isn’t very complicated, but we, the Church of England, are making it so.
Simon, you are right. I should have said, ‘argue from an evangelical perspective’.
Andrew Lightbown, I still argue from Scripture, especially on sites like Christian Post, because there are people who genuinely care what the Bible says, but have only heard one view and a narrow selection of passages. Not to argue from the scriptures is to file them the field, and let a whole new generation (or two) think all people who treasure the Bible think in one way. That probably won’t apply on TA though.
A small point, but I think it is significant. I see Tom Wright has been wheeled-out to be part of this from his current post in St Andrew’s (but, interestingly, not David Brown who is also Anglican and holds a chair in systematic and historical theology at the same University). Tom Wright (unlike David Brown) does not hold a Licence from the Bishop of St Andrew’s and is not actively involved in the life of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Does this not beg questions as to whether he is ecclesially qualified to contribute to this process?